Introduction
After reviewing the case, I agree with the jury’s decision to impose heavy punitive damage on McDonald’s for its attitude toward a clear safety hazard. A firm can be sued for an unintentional tort and held liable for its product’s impact on others’ health. This paper will assess the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, the company’s negligence, and how its hot coffee was a significant legal liability.
Discussion
Despite the fact that Mrs. Liebeck had inflicted this damage by herself, the firm failed to prevent the occurrence of these injuries. The company has known about the danger that its hot coffee imposed on customers for years yet did not issue any warnings (“McDonald’s hot coffee case,” n.d.). Despite this knowledge and past incidents, McDonald’s did not fix the issue. Judges have decided that the evidence is sufficient to punish the company for its disregard of critical information (“McDonald’s hot coffee case,” n.d.). Exceedingly hot coffee can be counted as a defect in a product. This substance can be dangerous to others’ health and can lead to strict liability for its seller (The Business Professor, 2013, 00:20-00:01:12). It is apparent that Mcdonald’s did not ensure the safety of its beverage, and the judges’ decision was correct.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the strictness of the court’s decision is adequate for this case, as McDonald’s has failed to adequately assess the dangers of its products or warn its customers about them. Punitive damages the company paid after this trial ensure that it will never show the lack of any concern for the potential damage to people’s health. I agree that it was essential to punish such negligence from a major firm that already had a history of similar incidents.
References
The Business Professor. (2014). Strict product liability – Tort[Video]. YouTube. Web.
The McDonald’s hot coffee case. (n.d.). Consumer Attorneys of California. Web.